A blog on politics and education, supporting socialist ideals and equality of opportunity. Against obscene wealth and inequality.

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Reactions to Labour`s defeat

As you reported on Friday, albeit before the
disastrous election results were known, even Ed Miliband "has admitted that it`s
pressure from below that changes society"(Morning Star,08/05/15). Could I,
therefore, humbly suggest that Labour immediately starts listening to the views
of its supporters, rather than those of Charles Clark and the rest of the
Blairite clique? That will mean there has to be more emphasis on the
re-nationalisation of energy and railways, though I fear it will be too late to
prevent the re-privatisation of RBS.

The teacher vote needs to be regained for
Labour, and that will inevitably involve the selection of an education
spokesperson with experience of state education, who realises the wonderful work
being done in the vast majority of our schools. It is imperative to have someone
at the helm of Labour`s education policy who understands that "character and
resilience" abound in all schools and isn`t the preserve of the private sector.
With teacher workload reaching ridiculous levels, Labour needs to work much more
closely with teacher union leaders.

On a similar subject, Labour can no longer be a
party in denial of its links with trade unions. It needs to show pride, both in
its history and in its support for all unions and their members, and have the
bottle to be willing to support the inevitable industrial action which will take
place under the rule of the callous Tories.

Having a party united on such ideals as
increasing social mobility and decreasing the huge gaps between rich and poor,
and adopting the above ideas as priorities, would certainly bring some
much-needed credibilty to the party after the disaster of May 7th.

Alan Johnson correctly stated that the "biggest
damage" to Labour`s election prospects was done by there being "no effective
riposte to Cameron`s successful distortion" of their "economic record in
government (From that Question Time moment. the die was cast,09/05/15). Sadly,
this shows not only the effectiveness of constant repetition, Goebbels-style, of
a lie, but the weaknesses of Labour`s campaign. Why wasn`t, for instance, the
fact that the coalition, in five years, had borrowed £157.5bn compared to
Labour`s £142.7bn in thirteen years, made one of the centre-pieces of Labour`s
message?

Much soul-searching, as Polly Toynbee says, is
now essential for Labour, with there being "no rush to any wrong judgements"
(Labour has failed but it`s the low-paid who will lose out,09/05/15) However, as
we know what to expect from the Tories and their "anti-state ideology" in the
next five years, with government spending reverting to levels last seen in the
1930s, inequality rising, and savage cuts reducing public sector jobs and
welfare benefits, Labour`s future direction should be obvious. Too many Labour
party supporters jumped ship because it was deemed too similar to the Tory
party, and Blairite advice to move to the right will only accentuate the
problem. Policies have to be based around social justice, fairness, increasing
social mobility and decreasing inequality. Austerity should be rejected,
especially as there is always the possibility of using quantitative easing; if
it can create £375bn to re-capitalise banks, it should be possible to use it to
fund essential services and infrastructure. Work needs to be done on practical
methods to reduce tax avoidance which costs the country at least £40bn a year,
and which this Tory government will do as little as possible to reduce.
Educating the electorate into a renewed belief in Labour`s competence needs to
start this year, not a few months before the next election!

Most of the Labour candidates so far seem united in
their verdict on their party`s defeat: "not aspirational enough", and so not
attracting the support of the middle class, and "failure to be pro-business", as
Tristram Hunt says, "not doing enough to listen to business"(Leader lineup:The
five who may be set to battle for Labour`s top job,11/05/15). Such simplistic and biased evaluation does not augur well for the
future of the party.

The Blairites` emphasis on the middle-class
ignores a number of points; Miliband repeatedly argued in favour of more being
done for the "squeezed middle", aspiration, and ambition "to shop at Waitrose"
occasionally, are not the preserve of the middle-class, whilst the hemorrhaging
of white working class votes to Ukip, and also to the more radical SNP and
Green parties, was clearly an important factor.

All the Blairite candidates stress that a
more pro-business stance is needed, meaning, in all probability, adopting a
policy similar to the that of the Tories. Doubtless, then, they would like to
hear lots of meaningless rhetoric condemning tax avoidance as "morally
repugnant", but doing next to nothing to reduce the £40bn or so which should be
going to the Treasury annually. Similarly, raising the minimum wage would be a
very low priority, so the number of families relying on benefits would continue
to rise, whilst government contracts would still be given to firms better known
for their refusal to pay the living wage, and their tax avoiding practices, than
their efficiency and competence. The financial sector would be allowed to pay
obscene salaries and bonuses without fear of extra taxation. A Blairite Labour
party would propose no increase in the much avoided corporation tax, even though
the current rate is the lowest in the G7, and 18 points lower than in the
US.

The people of this country do not deserve another
party claiming to be pro-business when businesses in the country are anything
but pro-people!

The speed with which the likes of Blair, Mandelson
and Clarke have rushed to condemn the leftist leaning policies of Ed Miliband,
claiming that his "terrible mistake" which ignored "ambition and aspiration" and
wasn`t sufficiently pro-business, lost Labour the election, disgusts me (Morning
Star,11/05/15). They clearly are delighted to see the Tories back in power.
Similarly, all those contenders for the leadership who have not wasted a second
in submitting their applications via the media, condemning Miliband and his
policies in the same Blairite language, but very willing to accept the positions
in the shadow cabinet which he offered them, deserve all the criticism
which many on the left will undoubtedly heap upon them.

Do Umunna and Hunt really believe the Labour
party lost the election because it was anti-business? Is this why the party
hemorrhaged votes to Ukip, and the more radical SNP and Green parties? Should
Labour do nothing about businesses avoiding billions of tax like the Tories, sit
back whilst millions are forced to accept zero-hours contracts and a minimum
wage which is so low its recipents require housing benefits to survive? Perhaps
helping private landlords to acquire more property, so that their exploitation
of tenants can continue unabated, is what these would-be leaders prefer? They
conveniently fail to recall the number of times people said that the "parties
are all the same"!

Blairites and Tories may well be "intensely
relaxed" about CEOs earning 150 times that of their average worker, about
millions relying on food banks to feed their families, and about little
regulated banks paying next to nothing in extra taxation on obscene bonuses, but
that does not mean the rest of us have to agree.

As for their ridiculous point about ignoring
the "aspirational middle classes", firstly it implies that only people regarded
as middle class have any ambition whatsoever, which is deeply insulting, and
secondly, it was Ed Miliband who repeatedly stressed the importance of not
ignoring the "squeezed middle". However, like the Tories, the Blairites` turning
a blind eye to empirical evidence is clearly habit-forming!

Polly Toynbee is right to urge delaying the choice
of Labour leader "for a decent interval", especially because of the "indecent
haste" shown by the Blairite candidates, and their supporters (Forget
"Blairism".Rediscover the early radicalism of Blair,12/05/15). They might well
stress the need for deep soul-searching by the party, but their failure to delay
their leadership bids, and allow an element of dust-settling, does nothing to
illustrate their sincerity. Winning "public trust" will require much more than
simply blaming the party`s election defeat on its failure to woo the people they
all refer to as the "aspirational middle classes", conveniently forgetting
Miliband`s constant concern for the "squeezed middle".

All the Blairite candidates also stress
that a more pro-business stance is needed, meaning, in all probability,
adopting policies similar to the those of the Tories. Doubtless, then, they
would like to hear lots of meaningless rhetoric condemning tax avoidance as
"morally repugnant", but doing next to nothing to reduce the £40bn or so which
should be going to the Treasury annually. Similarly, raising the minimum
wage would be a very low priority, so the number of families relying on benefits
would continue to rise, whilst government contracts would still be given to
firms better known for their refusal to pay the living wage, and their tax
avoiding practices, than their efficiency and competence. The financial sector
would be allowed to pay obscene salaries and bonuses without fear of extra
taxation, and there would be no increase in the much avoided corporation tax,
even though the current rate is the lowest in the G7, and 18 points lower than
in the US.

There are lessons to be learned by Labour, but,
as Toynbee says, the leadership candidates will be better judged by how "they
take the fight to the real enemy", rather than the speed with which they spout
out "on Sunday TV sofas" Blairite platitudes!